Election Night Coverage

9:19 PM (15% of Precincts Reporting)- It looks as though the Democrats picked up a couple governorships on the east coast. I'm wondering what this will mean to George Bush.

In California, it looks as though most of the propositions will fail. However, two important ones to me 74 & 75 are not going my way. I will continue to follow it.

Proposition 74:
Yes: 50.33
N:o 49.67

Proposition 75:

Yes: 54.19%
No: 45.81%

10:10 PM (35% Precincts Reporting)

It looks like three of the four propositions are going down. Proposition 73 and 74 are still close but so far the NO's are carrying it. Proposition 75 may pass. That is the one that limits campaign contributions from union members. I'm wondering how effective that will be in the long run. Arnold has a made an enemy of the union and I'm sure that will energize them for the upcoming election. So, the unions might actually gain from this defeat. We will see.

As for the national implications. Will the Republicans see the loss in Virginia as an opening to step away from President Bush. He didn't do much campaigning there but this may be a sign that Republicans are in trouble in 2006. Never mind the New York race. Bloomberg had that in the bag three years ago.

Proposition 73:
No: 50.21
Yes: 49.79

Prop. 74:
No: 51.93
Yes: 48.07

Prop. 75:
Yes: 51.24
No: 48.76

Final Analysis:

It looks as though all of the propositions failed. There is only one reason for that... Arnold. This was a rejection of him and the process. $240 million were spent on this election and Californians have not benefited one bit except to tell the elected officials, we elect YOU to handle things like this.

The fact is that no one is 100% right in any argument. However, the ballot initiative ask the public to support one side and basically eliminates the possibility of compromise. This is a terrible way to run a state government and the law needs to change to limit when the governor can call a special elections.

What we have is a politician that played a zero-sum game and came up bust. How do you expect to do anything when you take on the fire department, police department, government workers, teachers and organized labor at the same time? Isn't one of the basic philosophies in politics is picking and choosing a battle?

In his speech last night he presented a tone of reconciliation. That's a good start because he now has to prepare the damage and start the process over again. He should have tried maybe one or two of these on next year's primary. That way the extra money would not have been spent to get nothing.

I think he can still get re-elected because a viable Democrat has not stepped up to the plate to challenge him. However, he will have to do a lot of reaching across the aisle to make it happen. We will see. But for now, I am happy. Prop. 74 was my biggest concerned and I was worried for a while. But by 11pm, the only proposition that had a chance was 75... and that went down in flames as well.


17 Responses to Election Night Coverage

  1. Cynthia Says:
    What is wrong with CA voters? Maybe you can shed some light on this...

    First of all, I should say, I'm glad you guys voted down Prop 78.

    Big Pharma paid off some key black politicians (Judas among us) to get voters to vote yes on Prop 78, which would have given discounts to Big Pharma. It's an interesting story.

    But, I don't understand why Prop 79 was voted down since it would have given discounts to the consumer?

  2. Dell Gines Says:
    James, I was reading about the CA proposals as well. I don't understand how a state with as many financial issues reject limiting spending?
  3. James Manning Says:

    I think they basically confused the voters as to which prop. would benefit them There were two prop that would do about the same thing but there were a couple of poison pills in them and voters just decided to reject them both.


    The spending limits prop had a lot of bad things wrong with it. First, it gave the governor the power to call a fiscal emergency and cut any programs he chose without legislative oversight. Second, the prop. set it up so that 14 members of the state congress could reject a budget thereby handing the process over the the governor. It wasn't so much the spending limits but the power elimination of checks and balance in the budget process.

    Third, Arnold is very unpopular so with his name over the prop, people were basically rejecting him.

    Finally, I think people are tired of these special elections. This is a horrible way to run a government. The have elected officials that should work this out. $240 million was spent on this. That's a lot of money to end up where you started.
  4. Dell Gines Says:
    That makes a whole lot of sense now. I can see why they wouldn't want him to have that power.

    What are you guys going to do to get spending under control? It seems as if the unions among others are unwilling to give any ground.

    It is almost like a death by a thousand cuts.

    Did they ever loosen up some of the regulations on small business?
  5. Eddie Says:
    Actually, the Democrats didn't pick up any new Governorships. They merely replaced the old Democrats. Bloomberg won, no big surprise there.

    As far as Cali, well, they are in their own world out there.
  6. Rell Says:
    I don't think this means anything really for Bush, but for Hillary R. Clinton this could be HUGE.
  7. James Manning Says:
    California politics is a world unto itself. It is very different than the corrupt, cronyism, bar room brawl politics of Illinois and Chicago in particular.

    Basically, there is no difference between a Republican and a Democrat in Illinois. It's a matter of who you know and how much it is going to cost you.
  8. Mary Sue James Says:
    It is a no-brainer. Why on Earth would we want our children being stuck with poor quality teachers. sure, the majority of teachers are quality. However, I remember being in school and about 15% of teachers were coming to school drunk or stoned. That was 20 years ago, I am sure the percentage of circtumstances like that has increased since then. In community college I even had teachers tell me that I do not need to come to class to get an A. I was asked on two occasions just not to drop their class so they can keep their jobs. I do not have children, but when I do, I do not want my children to be subjected and Stuck with do to "tenure" teachers that are like that. If you are a good teacher then there would be nothing to worry about. It is that simple. If new would be teachers would be discouraged from teaching because of a longer probation period then maybe their intentions were that of the teachers I spoke of and should not be teaching at all anyway. What is wrong with California?

    Mary Sue James
    Lake Forest, California
  9. James Manning Says:
    Mary Sue, I think you read Prop. 74 incorrect. All it did was remove due process for the elimination of teachers from 2 to 5 years. A tenured teacher in California can be fired but there is a process to do so. With this prop. that process places everything on the evaluation of a teacher. That may sound fair, but basically, you have to completely overhaul the evaluation system. Check the details here. California would have become just the 3rd state to require teacher to wait five years for tenure:

    Prop. 74 Details
  10. jaimie Says:
    Thank you James for getting at Mary. I was just about to do that. She obviously didn't read the proposition through too clearly.


    As a tenured teacher, I CAN be fired. But at least now, if I am fired, there would be a hearing before a board before this could occur. In the meantime, inner city schools will remain underfunded, lacking of supplies, and contain a huge teacher turnover.

    Sorry you had teachers who were high and drunk. At my school, and at friends' schools, our teachers don't go to school high and drunk. Teaching is our profession-we are here to educate and serve children and families. We hold the roles of mothers/fathers, nurses, psychologists, mentors, and educators-all in a day's work.

    How much do you do in a day? And if you do a lot, would you feel comfortable with the fact that you could lose your job at any time, possibly just because your boss doesn't like you (which is a fear that we had when we heard about Prop 74)?

    It is people who, like Mary, disgust teachers and community servers. It's amazing that still, in 2005, teachers are not recognized for all we do. And, it is people like Mary, who have no children, who think they know everything there is to know about children and the educational system. Funny, considering she has no children in school, but yet she thinks she is able to judge my profession.
  11. Mary Sue James Says:
    James Manning, Thank You for the link. I have read it and I agree that dismissing a teacher would become much easier, but with the current shortage of teachers quality teachers or even semi-good teachers would not be fired. If a teacher is good and doing their job even just a decent job at that, then there would be nothing to worry about. As the analysis stated after appeals it can take years to get rif of an unsatisfactory teacher. The time it takes cost money and meanwhile subjects students to either unethical or substandard learning. Thank You and I do understand both sides to a certain extent. There is always a pro and a con with everything. I feel in this situation though that the pros to have voted yes on prop 74 outweighted heavily the vote to say no. The only reason it lost is because of the brainwashing commercials played repeatedly whining that money was taken from teachers. The Governor could have spent more money refuting the lies, however probably did not want to waste money refuting something that should have been so obvious.
  12. James Manning Says:
    Mary, I respect your opinion, however, you fail to weigh the cost of firing a teacher to the cost of recruiting teacher if they feel there is less job security. You fail to alleviate the stress that teacher will have if they have personal issues at work and find themselves with no due process after loosing a job. You fail to calculate the cost of renegotiating teacher's contracts because if you think the union would keep the current evaluation system where they are evaluated by the folks that will fire them without due process, you are mistaken.

    The proposition made no means to strengthen teacher mentoring, class sizes, parental involvement, supplies, administrative support - a lot these things go into being a successful teacher.

    There are some people that make naturally great teachers. However, most learn how to become great teacher and if that structure is not in place, you are not really reforming anything.

    By the way, welcome to Peace on That. I appreciate your input.
  13. Eddie Says:
    I don't know why anyone would send their children to public schools to begin with. I went to catholic grade school and it was far superior to my public high school. If only we had vouchers, we could REALLY choose the school we wanted, and not have a government run monopoly run by the teacher's unions.
  14. Intellectual Insurgent Says:
    You raise very good points. I think the propositions fell because the electorate saw them for what they were - vindictive attacks on the people who respond to their 911 calls.

    Let's take 74. Either you agree with the concept of tenure or you do not. I personally think it's baloney and teachers should be subject to being fired on a day's notice like the rest of us. That said, our Gover-waster spent $40 million or $240 million (depending on whose numbers you like) to affirm the concept of tenure, but just to tinker with it a bit. He's a panzy. Same with 75. I don't like unions, they are thieves and extortionists, but I am suppost to vote for a law that protects them from being extorted; that essentially validates their existence? Either abolish unions or accept that they exist.

    Arnold's arrogance got the best of him and the electorate is tired of it. The R's thought it was funny when he resorted to low-brow insults calling opponents Girly Men, but apparently no one else found it funny.
  15. James Manning Says:
    Welcome II, I think Arnold's name on the ballot is what killed these propositions. The thing about unions is that the look our for their workers. I'm sure if most of us were in unions, we'd have more protections than what we do now.
  16. Intellectual Insurgent Says:
    Unions look out for their members, but they do so the way the mob looks after its own. They shut out non-union people from jobs, which I think is wrong. They fight to keep incompetents employed, which completely ruins their credibility.

    I am a lawyer and I used to practice employment law, defending employers. I once handled a case where one employee almost killed another employee (left her physically disfigured for life). My client wanted to fire employee A for being an obvious retard, but couldn't because the union was all over it. Employee A got a warning. Since then, unions lost all credibility they otherwise may have had with me.
  17. James Manning Says:
    That's an extreme case... and I'm sure we can pull cases out of the air from now til the cows come home (where the hell did that saying come from) but overall, I think unions are good and considering that American workers on losing grounds on their rights, unions make a lot more sense.